Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Nagol]

Let's start with the city example. The bad guy is running away. He MIGHT be taking the best route. Apparently the PCs know where he is going

When the PCs ask if there's a faster route, they are not necessarily asking to move streets around. They are certainly seeking to gain a tactical advantage through information.

a) did the bad guy take the shortest commonly known route?
b) is there an uncommon route that is shorter still (like back alleys or cutting through Wang's diner).

Odds are good your map does not show Wang's diner on it nor if it has doors that would allow that path to exist.

As a GM, if you did not make some kind of knowledge roll for the NPC to take the best route, than all you have legitimately done is declared he took a route. It's not fair to assume he's got perfect knowledge.

So when the PCs ask, if you didn't rolll, you can use the PCs roll as a skill challenge vs. the NPC's knowledge of the same city

I don't expect a GM to think of making a skill check for the NPC, especially for what might be an impromptu escape plan. But when the players are trying to chase him, his ability to choose the best route is in competition with the players and as a race, that decision need be decided by a common tool.

The outcome need not result in streets shifting. That would be nonsense. It does mean that generation on non-declared world details might happen. 4th street bridge is closed for repairs, so while it is on the shortest route normally, it's a dead-end when you get there. Wang's cuts out 75 feet on rounding that corner block. Etc.

It might be that the NPC is a visitor and planned his escape route to his rocket ship by studying the city map from the visitors bureau last week. The city map that doesn't include alleyways or market streets that are not intended for through traffic.


As a GM, the moment the PCs are in contest with the NPC, the map and the NPCs ability to navigate it are called into question. That can mean Run checks, Nevigation checks, etc.

If you insist that the NPC took the absolute perfect path to the destination, you may be making a GMing mistake.

When the players ask if there's a shorter route, that's your opportunity to bring fairness and game rules back into the mix.

I don't think it should be a opposed because they are really aren't vying against one another.

If A takes the best route, there is nothing B can do but take the same or less optimal route.

both should roll against a static DC that represents the city situation -- assuming the result is not obvious (i.e. a static DC so low that both succeed by "Taking a 1").

Whomever rolls sufficiently high takes the best route. The more complex the environment with the greater the number of potential routes, the higher the static DC.

Now if A is taking the best route, and B is aware that is the best route (i.e. both groups beat the static DC), it is incumbent on B to try a different gambit or cede success to A.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The one thing players almost always have in common is that their character is the most important thing in the game to that player. Setting, story, exploration, whatever, all comes second to that player's character.

This is the core of the problem. The most important thing in the game for everyone should be having a good time and helping others do likewise.

Competing special snowflakes are not the best thing for the game IMHO.

Also, what is happening during the game is actual play, not narrative.

 

[The Shaman]

To sum up, for me, it is standard game play to ask if something is present that logically does tend to exist in the typical environment(candlesticks in Dining Rooms, shortcuts on maps, rocks on roads, applecarts in markets, deer in forests) and that the GM is free to resolve the answer by their own method.

It is therefore accepted that the player is trying to lead or manipulate the GM into saying Yes so as to gain an advantage, but that is no more or less what a player and PC would try to do regardless of the GM's resolution mechanic.

It is a different thing to ask for unusual things (like a Teleport Pad in the woods) which are atypical for that kind of environment. If the rules don't allow for stronger content suggestions (points to spend on Content) than the GM is within his right to say "No" outright as the player may be abusing the "clarifying question" principle.

Worth repeating, quoted for truth, plus-one, and hell yeah.

Could some kind poster drop an XP on [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] for me?

Just as for the playes, so for the GM in resolving the NPC's action - there are any number of reasons why an intention could misfire in some way, and when there is something at stake, I'm not a big fan of the GM deciding unilaterally, without engaging the mechanics, that the NPC automatically succeeds.

In the [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] example of the adventurer seeking a shortcut, that isn't the end of engaging the mechanics in the games I run. If, based on my knowledge of the setting, a short cut isn't plausible, there's still a pursuit to be had, in which all sorts of rolls may come into play; maybe the adventurers decide to try to make their own shortcut by climbing a building and running along a roof top (my map of Paris is detailed enough to make this a plausible action), or maybe they commandeer a horse (which can involve its own set of skill checks), or maybe they just flat out chase the guy (which results in opposed rolls for movement and detection).

Saying, "No, there is no shortcut," doesn't end engaging the rules of the game.

 

[The Shaman]

Honestly, on a totally personal note, I think that granting limited narrative control (even to the point of dictating to the GM/DM) is a good thing.

The one thing players almost always have in common is that their character is the most important thing in the game to that player. Setting, story, exploration, whatever, all comes second to that player's character. And rightly so. A character is the only thing in a game that the player actually "owns". It's the only thing the player has any direct control over and, by extention, the DM isn't supposed to put his grubby paws all over.

So, it's okay for the players to dictate to the referee, but not the other way around?

 

[Janx]

I don't think it should be a opposed because they are really aren't vying against one another.

If A takes the best route, there is nothing B can do but take the same or less optimal route.

both should roll against a static DC that represents the city situation -- assuming the result is not obvious (i.e. a static DC so low that both succeed by "Taking a 1").

Whomever rolls sufficiently high takes the best route. The more complex the environment with the greater the number of potential routes, the higher the static DC.

Now if A is taking the best route, and B is aware that is the best route (i.e. both groups beat the static DC), it is incumbent on B to try a different gambit or cede success to A.

There are many different ways to use the rules to resolve it.

My theory is, the DM should not fiat that the NPC is ACTUALLY taking the fastest route. Obviously, the NPC intends to.

If the GM is like me and didn't THINK of that possibility and just decided the NPC is going from point A to point B as fast as he can, the details do not matter until it intersects with the PCs interests.

At that point, if the roles were reversed, and the NPC was chasing the PCs, then the GM would probably do skill checks, etc.

In both cases, PCs would try to use their skills (running, navigation, streetwise) to get the best result they could.

Since the GM likely skipped that step for the NPC, when it collides with the player's, he's obligated to find a fair ruling to determine those details.

But ruling that the NPC has perfect knowledge of the city and therefore chooses perfect routing, whereas the PC has to roll for it smacks of unfair arbitration. Especially if the NPC's background reflects less mastery of the subject than the PC.

Jameson seemed to advocate that his NPC has perfect knowledge and perfect routing. Therefore, the best the PCs can do is to keep the pace with the NPC.

That does not sound like a fair chase. And by fair, I mean one that actually applies the same rules to both parties. It enforces the outcome that if the NPC is 3 rounds ahead of the PCs, the PCs can, at best, arrive 3 rounds after the NPC. That is a predetermined outcome, one which reality may not reflect.

In reality, if I am 18 seconds behind you, chasing you down city streets and I know where you are headed, there are numerous factors that might slow me down or slow you down. You might get stopped by a waggon for a few seconds. One that has passed by the time I get there. I might have better endurance and keep pace better. I might be able to cut corners better, whereas the flow from 12 seconds ago forced you into heavier congestion that wasn't obvious as you rounded the corner.

The point is, the moment 2 sides contest the outcome (a race), both sides should follow some rules to determine who wins. Even if the one side has an advantage or head start.

Predetermining that the NPC side makes no mistakes causes an unfair standard that even when directly opposed, NPCs don't follow the same chance of failure rules.

What happens off camera or is uncontested is a different matter. Namely because it's like the NPC took 20. It can be assumed the NPC is successful because the PC isn't there taking steps to thwart it or react to it. Additionally, it'd be a pain in the butt to role play your NPC against yourself as GM to verify he did everything he did.

Why does this matter? It comes down to that if you have an 18 second lead to run through the city for 12 blocks, that you might beat me, even if we have the same stats.

If the NPC does not earn that victory by rolling for it like the PCs have to, you are cheating your players and in effect railroading an outcome.

Note, I concede that at the macro level, if 1 party has a head start over the other, the details may be glossed over and logically, the head start party will get there first by the same margin he started.

But once the players start drilling in, getting details, then those details matter and both parties are subject to the same possibilities.

 

[Janx]

Saying, "No, there is no shortcut," doesn't end engaging the rules of the game.

I agree with your post. As a fellow GM, I of course am trying to convince others of my mindset on WHY there sometimes might be a shorter path.

If your map details really are good, then there may be no true shortcut. But that's a per map and per circumstance decision, in my belief.

But as you point out, there may be other reasons why the PCs in pursuit may still catch up.


PS thanks for the XPish btw.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In the [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] example of the adventurer seeking a shortcut, that isn't the end of engaging the mechanics in the games I run. If, based on my knowledge of the setting, a short cut isn't plausible, there's still a pursuit to be had, in which all sorts of rolls may come into play; maybe the adventurers decide to try to make their own shortcut by climbing a building and running along a roof top (my map of Paris is detailed enough to make this a plausible action), or maybe they commandeer a horse (which can involve its own set of skill checks), or maybe they just flat out chase the guy (which results in opposed rolls for movement and detection).

Saying, "No, there is no shortcut," doesn't end engaging the rules of the game.

I don't think anyone is saying that you're a bad DM if you say there is no shortcut. The shortcut is just a given concept standing in for the idea of allowing the players to engage the game. If you say there's no shortcut, but then allow them to commandeer horses in order for a chance to succeed, you've still done more or less the same thing. You've given the players a fighting chance rather than boxing them into a single, predetermined path.

While I can only speak for myself, from what I can tell what people have been saying is that a DM who isn't open to alternative options from the players is a bad DM. How open is a matter of taste, and certainly not one I'm interested in debating. Nonetheless, if the players come up with all the approaches you listed and the DM shuts every one of them down out of hand, that seems to me to be a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a bad, railroading DM.

The whole point that I've been trying to make is about allowing the players a fair chance to attempt actions that their characters could realistically attempt. As I said in my first post, if there isn't a shortcut then there simply isn't a shortcut. That's fine. The DM saying "My NPC autowins and there's absolutely nothing I'll allow you guys to do to stop it," on the other hand, is not okay.

 

[pemerton]

Honestly, on a totally personal note, I think that granting limited narrative control (even to the point of dictating to the GM/DM) is a good thing.

<snip>

Narrative control is a way to get players to engage in the setting.

Agreed. A lot of the interesting parts of my setting have been built by my players (mostly by working out from their ideas for their PCs).

Saying, "No, there is no shortcut," doesn't end engaging the rules of the game.

Agreed.

I don't think it should be a opposed because they are really aren't vying against one another.

This goes to a point I made upthread in replying to JamesonCourage. What you say is true under a purely simulatoninst conception of what opposed checks mean. But that is not the right conception for all games. BW assumes that opposed checks are used to work out who wins in a conflict, but it doesn't assume that, because A's check is higher than B's, and B therefore loses, that B's loss is because of something that A did.

As I also pointed out there, 4e skill challenges work in a similar way. The complications that result from failed skill checks on the part of the players need not, within the fiction, be consequences of things the players did or didn't do. The GM can introduce an external complication as a response to a failed check.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Of course, once it's been accepted by everyone at the table as part of the shared fiction, then it is settled unless it is somehow unsettled by agreement (a character within the fiction does something to change things in the fiction, or something goes wrong at the table and we all agree to a retcon, or whatever).

I guess that's the thing. Once I have a map, I introduce it to the group, and it's now part of the setting, and part of the world (and part of the fiction). I don't have any private maps. I've used one, but only once, and it was years ago. The rest I just wing.

This comment isn't intended as contradiction, but reflection and elaboration. Arguably in D&D, if the players - by application of the action resolution mechanics for their PCs - reduce a monster or NPC to zero hit points, then the GM is obliged to narrate that the NPC or monster is dead.

And a similar example came up in my game a couple of months ago with a skill challenge. After this episode, the players had won a skill challenge, which in effect meant that their PCs had taunted an enemy - whom they had run into at a formal dinner and were therefore precluded from confronting directly - into attacking them, and therefore betraying his true colours in front of all the assembled NPC worthies. In a subsequent session, I narrated some conduct by some NPC which only made sense if the allegiance of the PC's enemy had remained ambiguous after the skill challenge. One of my players reminded me of the skill challenge success, and that the success meant that the true colours of the enemy had been exposed. I accepted the corerection and redescribed the situation appropriately.

I don't know where you (or others) put this on the spectrum of players' narrative control, but it felt like it at the time (at least to me as GM)!

I've read that report, and I definitely think that what you've described and run for your players was a form of player narrative control.

Thanks, though there's no need to apologise! It's an internet forum - everyone's doing their best to work out what the hell these other strangers are banging on about!

Couldn't XP. I'm glad there's no hard feelings

Well, in the reply to that post I did say that I was going to use your agreement to wedge you, but then qualified (in paranetheses) that I wasn't entirely sure how you would handle it, and so maybe wasn't wedging you but agreeing with you.

I think that in a subsequent post you said that autowin for the NPC was OK, and to me autowin implied "no mechanics, just GM fiat".

Yes, much as an "autowin" for a PC would be okay in my mind, if the circumstances warranted it. For example, if they saw the NPC at the top of a 100 ft. cliff, and he noticed them, a chase might begin. Assuming the PCs have no quick route up, they'd need to climb. Assuming a successful climb, he's probably had some time to start fleeing. If he had a horse on top of the cliff, he'll have an incredibly sizable lead by the time they reach the top. Even if the players are invested in catching him, I won't say, "no, he didn't flee on horseback" for some reason. If he's out of range by the time they reach the top, it's a "too bad" situation for them. I won't suddenly change the fact that he has a horse up there just because they didn't see it.

Just my play style. On the flip side, if it was reversed, the PCs would basically get away without rolls, too.

One interesting point in the neighbourhood is this: you have said that you would have the NPC do a Streetwise (or whatever) check, and if successful take the shortest route. The players could do the same for their PCs, and then if they succeeded too the chase would be on.

Just about, yes.

So each check is resolved not as part of a conflict, but as an independent factor in the situation. I personally prefer the BW way of doing it, which is that if the players win the oppposed check then the NPC failed - and that failure can be narrated in various ways that don't have to immediately reflect the PCs agency in the gameworld (for example, losing the opposed check could mean the NPC gets stuck in a street fair, even though the players winning their check for their PCs does not correspond to the PCs somehow setting up a street fair). Skill challenges are meant to be handled the same way in 4e (which is pretty obvious, I think, from the structure of the mechanics, and becomes obvious if not expressly acknowledged in the example of play in the Rules Compendium). When the PCs fail on a check, the GM is free to narrate some sort of complication or adversity which isn't necessarily, within the gameworld, caused by the PC failing at something (eg a player failing a diplomacy check could mean that, although the PC was very coureous etc, as s/he was speaking a bird flew overhead and crapped on the NPC's cloak, irritating the NPC and thus negating the PC's attempt to influence him/her through no fault of the PC's).

But this isn't a point about narrative control by players, but rather the introduction of a metagame element into action resolution.

Well, what I don't like about that approach (for my group) is that it makes certain highly competent individuals less competent on a poor roll or against another highly competent opponent. For example:

(1) Take the villain, who has a Streetwise of +20. He's incredibly competent. However, the party Thief (or whoever) also has +20. This means that should both make a check, if the Thief wins, he has the advantage, and if the villain wins, he has the advantage instead. Both are incredibly plausible.

(2) Take the villain, who has a Streetwise of +20. He's incredibly competent. However, the party Thief (or whoever) has a Streetwise of +13. This means that should both make a check, if the Thief wins, he has the advantage, and if the villain wins, he has the advantage instead. Both are plausible, but the Thief having the advantage is decidedly less so.

Where I think the discrepancy comes in is that (from my understanding) 4e is less concerned about what the villain's Streetwise check is, as it doesn't relate to combat. In such a situation, the PCs are rolling against a static DC (as set by the skill challenge), and the competence of the villain only factors in in a very subjective way (scaling DCs, of which you might say the DC is "hard" if you picture the villain with a good Streetwise).

What this does do, in my mind, is make NPC competency dependent on PC competency in a very subjective way. The PCs, by virtue of high rolls, can make NPCs less competent than I would expect them to be. While the skill challenge can be adjusted for to some extent (by setting the DC to "hard"), it makes a little less sense to me since when the NPC is alone, his Streetwise modifier is around +20 (which should make him very, very competent). It seems like his competency hiccups a little bit when the PCs confront him, and that throws off internal consistency (in my mind, at least).

Just my thoughts on it. It's definitely not wrong in my opinion to play with a narrative bent. It's good fun in my M&M game one-shots, so I can attest to that. I just wouldn't want it in a prolonged campaign, but that's just my taste. As always, play what you like

Let's start with the city example. The bad guy is running away. He MIGHT be taking the best route. Apparently the PCs know where he is going

[SNIP]

As a GM, if you did not make some kind of knowledge roll for the NPC to take the best route, than all you have legitimately done is declared he took a route. It's not fair to assume he's got perfect knowledge.

Thus, my statement:

Right, okay, this makes sense to me. And, according to the OP, the NPC was taking the most direct route. Maybe the NPC rolled a Local or Streetwise check to find the most direct route, and got it. It's not opposed by the PCs.

[AND]

Sometimes, I'll answer yes or no with no roll involved (I have a PC that's currently designing a city, is a master craftsman, and has a 22 Int and an 18 Wis). If he asked, "is there a faster way through the city?", I probably wouldn't make him roll. He designed it, he's incredibly intelligent with a great memory, and it's his profession. He just knows.

So, I don't assume that a roll is always necessary. For example, if the location someone is headed to is across the street, I don't think anyone would require a roll if people knew where it was. Likewise, if the road you're currently on leads to the castle (it's the main road in the city), I'm not going to make a roll happen to see if it's the most direct route. It is.

So when the PCs ask, if you didn't rolll, you can use the PCs roll as a skill challenge vs. the NPC's knowledge of the same city

This is taking away competency from an NPC through PC competence, and that's a subjective approach that my group doesn't appreciate, as it places "hiccups" in the internal consistency of the world. To us, at least. No real judgments from me on it, other than what works for my group.

I don't expect a GM to think of making a skill check for the NPC, especially for what might be an impromptu escape plan. But when the players are trying to chase him, his ability to choose the best route is in competition with the players and as a race, that decision need be decided by a common tool.

I agree, and that's why I'd prefer an unopposed skill check from each party.

The outcome need not result in streets shifting. That would be nonsense. It does mean that generation on non-declared world details might happen. 4th street bridge is closed for repairs, so while it is on the shortest route normally, it's a dead-end when you get there. Wang's cuts out 75 feet on rounding that corner block. Etc.

I feel unopposed (and skill challengleess) checks cover this adequately.

It might be that the NPC is a visitor and planned his escape route to his rocket ship by studying the city map from the visitors bureau last week. The city map that doesn't include alleyways or market streets that are not intended for through traffic.

It might be. That's what the unopposed Streetwise, Knowledge (local), or whatever is for.

As a GM, the moment the PCs are in contest with the NPC, the map and the NPCs ability to navigate it are called into question. That can mean Run checks, Nevigation checks, etc.

Yep, I totally agree.

If you insist that the NPC took the absolute perfect path to the destination, you may be making a GMing mistake.

I'm pretty sure I covered this both before this reply, and in it.

When the players ask if there's a shorter route, that's your opportunity to bring fairness and game rules back into the mix.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before, too. I think your post is mostly agreeing with me? As always, play what you like

pemerton: I think we're in agreement on objecting to the NPC being given an autowin.

Between this post and a previous reply, I hope this clears it up:

What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.

(1) That's not unreasonable to me if it makes sense. That is, looking at the game from a sense of internal consistency (not changing established facts, as the OP suggests be the case when the a shortcut would be created). To some groups, such as mine, this style of play is preferred, and much more rewarding than a more narrative style (and thus more fun for us).

(2) Having the most direct route is not an auto-win necessarily. You can still catch up, distract, trip up, etc. the villain. I think it's unfair to paint it as "you should be able to have a chance of cutting him off or it's unreasonable." That, to me, is unreasonable.

As always, play what you like

Jameson seemed to advocate that his NPC has perfect knowledge and perfect routing. Therefore, the best the PCs can do is to keep the pace with the NPC.

Two problems with this:

(1) I was using the example in the original post. In the original post, it was declared that the NPC had the most direct route, and that adding a shortcut would effectively be changing the setting. It does not say how the NPC knew this route, so I did not assume that the NPC had skipped rolls.

(2) I've stated specifically that if they pursue him, the chase would likely come down to a set of rolls to see if they catch him, which is far from "the best the PCs can do is to keep the pace with the NPC." In fact, it's rather against what I've indicated in this thread.

Predetermining that the NPC side makes no mistakes causes an unfair standard that even when directly opposed, NPCs don't follow the same chance of failure rules.

See, this is true, but I have no idea where you're getting this assumption from. It sounds like a simple misunderstanding.

I don't think anyone is saying that you're a bad DM if you say there is no shortcut. The shortcut is just a given concept standing in for the idea of allowing the players to engage the game. If you say there's no shortcut, but then allow them to commandeer horses in order for a chance to succeed, you've still done more or less the same thing. You've given the players a fighting chance rather than boxing them into a single, predetermined path.

While I can only speak for myself, from what I can tell what people have been saying is that a DM who isn't open to alternative options from the players is a bad DM. How open is a matter of taste, and certainly not one I'm interested in debating. Nonetheless, if the players come up with all the approaches you listed and the DM shuts every one of them down out of hand, that seems to me to be a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a bad, railroading DM.

The whole point that I've been trying to make is about allowing the players a fair chance to attempt actions that their characters could realistically attempt. As I said in my first post, if there isn't a shortcut then there simply isn't a shortcut. That's fine. The DM saying "My NPC autowins and there's absolutely nothing I'll allow you guys to do to stop it," on the other hand, is not okay.

Good post. I wouldn't consider player improvisation "player narrative control" but I'm very much on board with "if the player can realistically attempt something, he should be able to" and "the NPC shouldn't be able to auto-win and there's nothing you can do to stop it."

Then again, I don't think anyone in the thread is supporting either of those ideas, and the fact that several people keep pressing those points as if it's the case if confusing to me. Either it's a fundamental breakdown in simple communication, or it's dishonest. I sincerely hope it's the former. As always, play what you like

 

[Janx]

See, this is true, but I have no idea where you're getting this assumption from. It sounds like a simple misunderstanding.

Based on your response in #179, I concur that I misunderstood your position, and that in effect we both agree.